Author
Topic: Climate change help (Read 4791 times)

Mustachians,There are many environmental advocates in this crowd and I am hoping someone can help me find some facts I can use to argue for climate change. Most people who are on the other side of climate change don't argue that the world is getting warmer. But they want to know by how much is attributed to human intervention. What I am looking for is a study that specifically states what percentage of global warming is attributed to human activity.

There are lots of articles that say "a lot" or "significant" but none actually give me an answer to this question. There are also articles that say that 97% of scientists agree that human intervention adds to global warming but I can not find any that say by how much. I am hoping that a more devote environmentalist may be able to guide me to a good study that I can quote. I need real figures here please.

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

Honestly, the big hill is not finding and presenting appropriate science-based information. The bump tends to be uniformed skepticism built on input from shitty unreliable sources of information. It is a reference frame issue. Some studies show that presenting people with contradictory information makes them harden their stance rather than modify their point of view.

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

Honestly, the big hill is not finding and presenting appropriate science-based information. The bump tends to be uniformed skepticism built on input from shitty unreliable sources of information. It is a reference frame issue. Some studies show that presenting people with contradictory information makes them harden their stance rather than modify their point of view.

TLDR: good luck!

This PDF is the problem. Nothing states by how much human intervention affects climate change. Most skeptics will not disagree that the earth is warmer today as compared to decades ago. This is a known fact. The biggest hurdle I have is showing that it is our interactions that increase those greenhouse gases. CO2 has been very high in the past way before we burned fossil fuels.

The above article talks about weather patterns but does not discuss how much human intervention adds to the climate change. I don't think many will disagree that humans pollute our environment but this is a different topic of conversation. I really need some facts that give me a percentage or a range of percentage based on some models. I can't find anything.

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

Honestly, the big hill is not finding and presenting appropriate science-based information. The bump tends to be uniformed skepticism built on input from shitty unreliable sources of information. It is a reference frame issue. Some studies show that presenting people with contradictory information makes them harden their stance rather than modify their point of view.

TLDR: good luck!

This PDF is the problem. Nothing states by how much human intervention affects climate change. Most skeptics will not disagree that the earth is warmer today as compared to decades ago. This is a known fact. The biggest hurdle I have is showing that it is our interactions that increase those greenhouse gases. CO2 has been very high in the past way before we burned fossil fuels.

The above article talks about weather patterns but does not discuss how much human intervention adds to the climate change. I don't think many will disagree that humans pollute our environment but this is a different topic of conversation. I really need some facts that give me a percentage or a range of percentage based on some models. I can't find anything.

Let's just sidestep the detailed analysis, then (and also see the bolded part). Take a look at this fine graphic from XKCD. It doesn't directly provide the info you are looking for, but it does not take an expert to interpret the Temp plot.

The problem is that sociological studies mostly show that trying to move active deniers (or really anyone who holds a strong ideological position of any sort) OFF their position is near-impossible with data.

The reason, as I understand it, is that most of the hardcore deniers are much more tribal-y identified with ideas that 1) reject government regulation in general as acceptable (e.g., some libertarian types and ideological conservatives); 2) reject the concept of global cooperation or subsuming of national interest in favor of global interest (e.g., some nationalists and types who believe the UN is all an evil socialist plot); or 3) believe that god gave humans the earth and would not have set the system up to allow such a thing, or that god would fix it if it were a problem, or that believing humans could affect the planet at that type of scale is a particular type of blasphemous hubris (e.g., some religious types).

The particular sticking point is that the types of ideological concepts listed above are fundamental to identity and tribalism in a way that data cannot penetrate. So arguing from a point of facts is mostly useless. If you are trying to convince a hard core conservative nationalist whose identity is partly built around their rejection of 1) government right to regulate most of their individual choices, 2) and subsuming our national interest somewhat to the global interest and to a potentially power-hungry socialist global government, then they by definition CANNOT accept that climate change could be that bad, because accepting that fact would mean they must figure out a way to deal with it, and most methods of dealing with it conflict directly with their core beliefs.

This is more or less the reason I think we're going to destroy the planet. Emotion is stronger than data.

However, if you are trying to persuade someone who isn't strongly ideologically opposed, but merely uncertain of what data show, or confused by the media's tendency to present opposing view points that imply an even split in opinions even though there is actually consensus, or whatever, then go for it!

I'm not entirely convinced that you're not trolling here just to see if you can get the motivated crowd worked up to provide some information that you may already have the answer to. If that is not the case - I apologize.

I have seen this raised recently online, though. I question the relevance of knowing what portion is attributable to humans vs. natural warming trends. If the conclusion is that polar ice will melt and Florida will be entirely flooded (I don't know this is a fact, I'm using Florida to illustrate my example) - what does it really matter who or what carries the most blame - should the proper question not be: "How to we prevent this from happening?"

In other words, I'm seeing a ridiculous fight about climate science data validity when the relevant discussion should concern established consequences and how we can affect them in the future.

Cute picture. I loved the one about Pokemon and dogs. Again, most climate skeptics agree that the earth is warming. Indeed this correlates with human fossil fuel burning, but I still see no value that will say what percentage is actually due to human activity. All scientists know that correlation is not causation. I literally know a handful of people who would stop being skeptics if I can present that data. If I know a few people that means there are lots of skeptics in the world who would change their mind as well.

I'm not entirely convinced that you're not trolling here just to see if you can get the motivated crowd worked up to provide some information that you may already have the answer to. If that is not the case - I apologize.

I have seen this raised recently online, though. I question the relevance of knowing what portion is attributable to humans vs. natural warming trends. If the conclusion is that polar ice will melt and Florida will be entirely flooded (I don't know this is a fact, I'm using Florida to illustrate my example) - what does it really matter who or what carries the most blame - should the proper question not be: "How to we prevent this from happening?"

In other words, I'm seeing a ridiculous fight about climate science data validity when the relevant discussion should concern established consequences and how we can affect them in the future.

NESailor, This recent interest/discussion on percentage really got me thinking and I want that answer as well. I had a discussion with a very good friend of mine and I could not answer that question. The reason why it is important is because if human intervention has minimal effect and florida goes under, then there is no reason any human intervention that could prevent it. That is the argument from skeptics. I am not looking to be a troll but get the data so that I can reinforce my own understanding as well as help others understand.

Wenchsenior,I fully agree, there is no budging anyone who has all their beliefs based on trends, media, or cultural opinions. But there are plenty of people in the world who would like to think themselves open minded and want facts to make their decisions. Some will ignore the facts but others are willing to accept them and admit they are wrong.

Wait, what's wrong with the numbers from IPCC AR5? Chapter 10 is all about detection and attribution. Figure 10.5 shows the mean range of attribution numbers. The AGW mean is 110%, indicating that there was some natural cooling going on as well.

Quote

It is virtually certain that internal variability alone cannot account for the observed global warming since 1951.

where phrases such as "virtually certain" in the IPCC have defined meanings. This phrase means ">99% probability."

So, naturally, it depends on the study. If you're looking for "one number," the mean is 110% based on peer-reviewed research. The chance of it being less than 50% caused by humans, based on research, is almost 0%.

Is it global warming or climate change? I remember back in the seventies and early eighties the environmentalist were shouting that humans were bringing about a new ice age that would destroy life as we knew it. I'm not sold on the theory that we humans are destroying the planet. I do believe that we pollute our environment, sometimes to unsafe levels. But in my lifetime I've seen significant decreases in air and water pollution, even though there are more people and cars than ever. Some places are "dirtier" than others, but by and large, at least in the US our environment is better than say fifty years ago. This is not based on any scientific data I've collected, but is based on my own personal observations. I spend a lot of time outdoors and see evidence all the time of a cleaner environment than what I witnessed as a kid. I have seen data that suggests the ice caps are melting, then see evidence the next year that the ice caps grew the previous winter. I've seen "scientific theories" ten years ago made by the likes of Gore suggesting that Florida will be flooded in just a few years. Hasn't happened. My personal take is this: although I don't think it's a calamity, we humans do owe it to our planet to do what we can, within reason, to reduce our pollution and conserve our resources. I try to conserve water and electricity and drive less. We eat whole foods to the extent possible, recycle/repurpose where we can, and try to create as little waste as possible. This has the duel benefit of saving money and caring for our environment. Can we all do better? Yes, and we should. But I don't believe that we as a race are to the point that we are destroying our planet.

Belief is irrelevant when it comes to the scientific method. You must consider the model that best explains the observations and act according to the weight of the risks and their probability of occurring.

Skepticism is good as it can help drive our observations and model development but when it comes to climate change skepticism, it seems to me to rely on rejecting a whole lot of measurable observation.

Is it global warming or climate change? I remember back in the seventies and early eighties the environmentalist were shouting that humans were bringing about a new ice age that would destroy life as we knew it. I'm not sold on the theory that we humans are destroying the planet. I do believe that we pollute our environment, sometimes to unsafe levels. But in my lifetime I've seen significant decreases in air and water pollution, even though there are more people and cars than ever. Some places are "dirtier" than others, but by and large, at least in the US our environment is better than say fifty years ago. This is not based on any scientific data I've collected, but is based on my own personal observations. I spend a lot of time outdoors and see evidence all the time of a cleaner environment than what I witnessed as a kid. I have seen data that suggests the ice caps are melting, then see evidence the next year that the ice caps grew the previous winter. I've seen "scientific theories" ten years ago made by the likes of Gore suggesting that Florida will be flooded in just a few years. Hasn't happened. My personal take is this: although I don't think it's a calamity, we humans do owe it to our planet to do what we can, within reason, to reduce our pollution and conserve our resources. I try to conserve water and electricity and drive less. We eat whole foods to the extent possible, recycle/repurpose where we can, and try to create as little waste as possible. This has the duel benefit of saving money and caring for our environment. Can we all do better? Yes, and we should. But I don't believe that we as a race are to the point that we are destroying our planet.

We aren't going to go over all this again in yet another thread, are we? OP wasn't asking for opinions about climate change. They were asking about how to present data about climate change.

Is it global warming or climate change? I remember back in the seventies and early eighties the environmentalist were shouting that humans were bringing about a new ice age that would destroy life as we knew it. I'm not sold on the theory that we humans are destroying the planet. I do believe that we pollute our environment, sometimes to unsafe levels. But in my lifetime I've seen significant decreases in air and water pollution, even though there are more people and cars than ever. Some places are "dirtier" than others, but by and large, at least in the US our environment is better than say fifty years ago. This is not based on any scientific data I've collected, but is based on my own personal observations. I spend a lot of time outdoors and see evidence all the time of a cleaner environment than what I witnessed as a kid. I have seen data that suggests the ice caps are melting, then see evidence the next year that the ice caps grew the previous winter. I've seen "scientific theories" ten years ago made by the likes of Gore suggesting that Florida will be flooded in just a few years. Hasn't happened. My personal take is this: although I don't think it's a calamity, we humans do owe it to our planet to do what we can, within reason, to reduce our pollution and conserve our resources. I try to conserve water and electricity and drive less. We eat whole foods to the extent possible, recycle/repurpose where we can, and try to create as little waste as possible. This has the duel benefit of saving money and caring for our environment. Can we all do better? Yes, and we should. But I don't believe that we as a race are to the point that we are destroying our planet.

A literal 10 second Google search debunks that whole "global cooling in the 70s" nonsense.

Based on what the OP is asking for, I can only assume he/she is trolling

If we are reliant on convincing people that climate change is happening and is driven primarily from burning and releasing petro chemicals from the ground into the atmosphere, then I suggest the most useful thing a climate change believer can do is buy land in Canada for their grandkids.

Quote

This is more or less the reason I think we're going to destroy the planet. Emotion is stronger than data.

Yep, the ship has sailed on this one. Once is became part of the political discourse and people adopted a position and melded it with their identity, it became nearly impossible to form a plan of action to combat it.

I have thought that maybe if we changed the language around the discussion, focusing more on reducing pollution or conservation, which are things generally people agree on, we could at least make some headway. But then there are these guys:

1974 Time magazine article[edit]While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media. In their June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled "Another Ice Age?" that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary." [38]

1975 Newsweek article[edit]An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World",[39] it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."[39][40]

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."').[41]

Other 1970s sources[edit]Academic analysis of the peer-reviewed studies published at that time shows that most papers examining aspects of climate during the 1970s were either neutral or showed a warming trend.[42]

In 1977, a popular book on the topic was published, called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.[43] There were also a US TV show narrated by Leonard Nimoy in the 1977 In Search of... (TV series), episode 27, season 2, titled, "The Coming Ice Age: An inquiry into whether the dramatic weather changes in America's northern states mean that a new ice age is approaching." [44][45]

One might see how someone living through the 1970s understood that scientists were claiming that there was global cooling going on, yes? And saying that those people are wrong, and are misremembering things, may not be helpful to one's current argument.

1974 Time magazine article[edit]While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media. In their June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled "Another Ice Age?" that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary." [38]

1975 Newsweek article[edit]An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World",[39] it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."[39][40]

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."').[41]

Other 1970s sources[edit]Academic analysis of the peer-reviewed studies published at that time shows that most papers examining aspects of climate during the 1970s were either neutral or showed a warming trend.[42]

In 1977, a popular book on the topic was published, called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.[43] There were also a US TV show narrated by Leonard Nimoy in the 1977 In Search of... (TV series), episode 27, season 2, titled, "The Coming Ice Age: An inquiry into whether the dramatic weather changes in America's northern states mean that a new ice age is approaching." [44][45]

One might see how someone living through the 1970s understood that scientists were claiming that there was global cooling going on, yes? And saying that those people are wrong, and are misremembering things, may not be helpful to one's current argument.

Not really. In order to understand what scientist were actually predicting one would have to dig into the science itself. Like peer reviewed publications etc. Not open the latest Time Magazine.

The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science.

The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science.

The 97% claim. Look it up. The origins are staggering.

Good luck in your search. The truth is out there.

The primary conclusion I draw from the transcript in the blaze article is that Tucker Carlson is an asshole trying to make some red meat for his viewer base. Beyond that, the analysis of the science in your post is lacking in credibility.

Well, if someone remembered the popular press from the 70s, and hadn't updated their views in the 40 years since (!), they would be critical of scientists predicting global warming because "they were wrong back then."

Climate scientists were aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[17]). Despite that, in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports

[emphasis added]

The question becomes, then, how to get rid of that outdated concept in their head. "You're wrong, fool!" doesn't work because it puts people in a defensive position.

The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science.

The 97% claim. Look it up. The origins are staggering.

Good luck in your search. The truth is out there.

The primary conclusion I draw from the transcript in the blaze article is that Tucker Carlson is an asshole trying to make some red meat for his viewer base. Beyond that, the analysis of the science in your post is lacking in credibility.

Based on what the OP is asking for, I can only assume he/she is trolling

Sure but give the OP the benefit of the doubt, slim as it is.

An answer was provided. We'll see how much equivocation occurs.

I think it is comical that my question is considered trolling. Why is it trolling if I want to expand my own knowledge? Or is it trolling because I am asking others to defend their viewpoint. In all honesty I ask for myself knowing perfectly well there is a very large and insightful community here that can help me get the answer to my question.

Bacchi,Thank you for sharing that link. This is exactly what I was looking for. I shall be reading the entire thing on my next day off which is Monday. Although I understand the research process, I am not a climate scientist and need plenty of time to evaluate it. My goal is to understand it so that I can explain it to others. The best way to argue a position is to have a strong understanding of both points of view. Arguing on principals is much more powerful than just calling someone an idiot for not believing in science.

BTW, I doubt that is the only article out there giving numbers to the problem. I don't suppose you have anything else? It would be nice to have 2-3 of these. Considering that 1 scientist may be in error, but several presenting similar data could not be refuted.

Hi! I'm an actual living scientist! My own work involves developing computer models to determine if policies lead to sustainable outcomes. Anthropogenic climate change is settled. I've yet to meet a single person in the scientific community that argues that more research is need to determine if it is happening. The research has shifted to "How bad is it going to be?" and "What can we do to mitigate it?" To be honest, those of us that study this stuff would love to be wrong because it would mean that the future is not as scare as we are projecting it will be.

Thank you so much for responding. I completely agree with you. We need some data that discusses what exactly is the anthropogenic effect on climate change, and what kind of changes will improve outcomes. I think this research will pull a few skeptics out of the closet so to speak. It will do nothing for the complete disbelievers, but those that are on the fence this research would be a huge benefit. I am looking forward to seeing those results.

May I ask you a question since you put together these models? Many skeptics will say that there are too many variables and assumptions that lead to mistakes in these models. Can you please tell me that the assumptions are minimal and the variables are measured data. Any chance you can specify a little further. I would really like to understand the process.

Mustachians,There are many environmental advocates in this crowd and I am hoping someone can help me find some facts I can use to argue for climate change. Most people who are on the other side of climate change don't argue that the world is getting warmer. But they want to know by how much is attributed to human intervention. What I am looking for is a study that specifically states what percentage of global warming is attributed to human activity.

There are lots of articles that say "a lot" or "significant" but none actually give me an answer to this question. There are also articles that say that 97% of scientists agree that human intervention adds to global warming but I can not find any that say by how much. I am hoping that a more devote environmentalist may be able to guide me to a good study that I can quote. I need real figures here please.

Thanks so much in advance.

It sounds to me like you already have the answer to your question. If you could not find the exact figure of how much is man (or woman) made then why bother making the case for it? You reached your conclusion.

Based on what the OP is asking for, I can only assume he/she is trolling

Sure but give the OP the benefit of the doubt, slim as it is.

An answer was provided. We'll see how much equivocation occurs.

I think it is comical that my question is considered trolling. Why is it trolling if I want to expand my own knowledge? Or is it trolling because I am asking others to defend their viewpoint. In all honesty I ask for myself knowing perfectly well there is a very large and insightful community here that can help me get the answer to my question.

Bacchi,Thank you for sharing that link. This is exactly what I was looking for. I shall be reading the entire thing on my next day off which is Monday. Although I understand the research process, I am not a climate scientist and need plenty of time to evaluate it. My goal is to understand it so that I can explain it to others. The best way to argue a position is to have a strong understanding of both points of view. Arguing on principals is much more powerful than just calling someone an idiot for not believing in science.

BTW, I doubt that is the only article out there giving numbers to the problem. I don't suppose you have anything else? It would be nice to have 2-3 of these. Considering that 1 scientist may be in error, but several presenting similar data could not be refuted.

Hi! I'm an actual living scientist! My own work involves developing computer models to determine if policies lead to sustainable outcomes. Anthropogenic climate change is settled. I've yet to meet a single person in the scientific community that argues that more research is need to determine if it is happening. The research has shifted to "How bad is it going to be?" and "What can we do to mitigate it?" To be honest, those of us that study this stuff would love to be wrong because it would mean that the future is not as scare as we are projecting it will be.

Thank you so much for responding. I completely agree with you. We need some data that discusses what exactly is the anthropogenic effect on climate change, and what kind of changes will improve outcomes. I think this research will pull a few skeptics out of the closet so to speak. It will do nothing for the complete disbelievers, but those that are on the fence this research would be a huge benefit. I am looking forward to seeing those results.

May I ask you a question since you put together these models? Many skeptics will say that there are too many variables and assumptions that lead to mistakes in these models. Can you please tell me that the assumptions are minimal and the variables are measured data. Any chance you can specify a little further. I would really like to understand the process.

The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science.

The 97% claim. Look it up. The origins are staggering.

Good luck in your search. The truth is out there.

Hi! I'm an actual living scientist! My own work involves developing computer models to determine if policies lead to sustainable outcomes. Anthropogenic climate change is settled. I've yet to meet a single person in the scientific community that argues that more research is need to determine if it is happening. The research has shifted to "How bad is it going to be?" and "What can we do to mitigate it?" To be honest, those of us that study this stuff would love to be wrong because it would mean that the future is not as scare as we are projecting it will be.

I am not a scientist, only a layperson with an interest in the sciences. If I'm totally off base, someone with a scientific background is welcome to correct me, but this is my understanding of why a matter of "provide me a link and some proof and I'll totally believe you!" is not... really as black and white as people make it out to be re: climate change.

Climate change as a result of human action is a fact. Obviously (I should hope.)

The problem is that, as with many, MANY perfectly fine and correct findings derived through rigorous scientific methods, it takes a mountain and a half of studies, some good, some great, some flawed, all overlapping and building off each other, correcting and correlating and criticizing each other to make up the more complete picture (climate change/global warming) that we see now. There are many experiments you can conduct in a lab, and then duplicate in further studies, controlling for as many factors as possible. With climate change and the impact thereof, the earth is our laboratory, and the factors are infinite and impossible. You can't test for "every fact of human interference in the environment"-- where would you even start? Fossil fuels? Ozone? Coal? The drainage of lakes, building of dams, rerouting of major water sources? Overfishing? Giant cow populations? Pollution in the air and sea resulting in major impact to algae blooms? How does what happen in China impact the US, and vice versa? No one study, experiment, or research can cover them all, we can only look at a thousand million studies and draw our conclusions from those. But that, of course, is a complex answer that isn't easily swallowed by folks who just want something black and white and fitting to their personal political views.

And of course, for every bit of research stating one thing, people can point to another bit of research stating another-- even if it's been disproven, outdated, or is found to be untrue. That's the beauty of science, that it's ever growing and ever self correcting, but also the pain of it, as down the line, you can find a study that proves any old bullshit you want to prove, and people will cling to that if it matches their belief. Much like anti-vaxxers clinging to the one disproven, totally bullshit "research" linking vaccines to autism and claiming that it's science, really, you're going to have climate change deniers doing much the same.

The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science.

The 97% claim. Look it up. The origins are staggering.

Good luck in your search. The truth is out there.

Hi! I'm an actual living scientist! My own work involves developing computer models to determine if policies lead to sustainable outcomes. Anthropogenic climate change is settled. I've yet to meet a single person in the scientific community that argues that more research is need to determine if it is happening. The research has shifted to "How bad is it going to be?" and "What can we do to mitigate it?" To be honest, those of us that study this stuff would love to be wrong because it would mean that the future is not as scare as we are projecting it will be.

No. If you want to be contrarian, please provide a credible science-based piece of literature that shows that the aggregate body of knowledge behind out AGW/climate change is incorrect. If you can convince me that the overwhelming evidence for AGW is incorrect, I will happily concede, buy you a beer, pat you on the back, and thank you profusely because I (and most others) sure as hell wish it wasn't true.

The science is not settled. If it was, there would be one model, not many. It would be 100% accurate, instead of 100% inaccurate. Like gravity. Gravity we know very well (except at the edges of space and velocity, where it gets weird). There is one model. It works. Climate science is textbook unsettled. It can barely be called science, so much of it appears to be 'goalseeking' which is the opposite of science.

The 97% claim. Look it up. The origins are staggering.

Good luck in your search. The truth is out there.

Hi! I'm an actual living scientist! My own work involves developing computer models to determine if policies lead to sustainable outcomes. Anthropogenic climate change is settled. I've yet to meet a single person in the scientific community that argues that more research is need to determine if it is happening. The research has shifted to "How bad is it going to be?" and "What can we do to mitigate it?" To be honest, those of us that study this stuff would love to be wrong because it would mean that the future is not as scare as we are projecting it will be.

No. If you want to be contrarian, please provide a credible science-based piece of literature that shows that the aggregate body of knowledge behind out AGW/climate change is incorrect. If you can convince me that the overwhelming evidence for AGW is incorrect, I will happily concede, buy you a beer, pat you on the back, and thank you profusely because I (and most others) sure as hell wish it wasn't true.

I am not a scientist, only a layperson with an interest in the sciences. If I'm totally off base, someone with a scientific background is welcome to correct me, but this is my understanding of why a matter of "provide me a link and some proof and I'll totally believe you!" is not... really as black and white as people make it out to be re: climate change.

Climate change as a result of human action is a fact. Obviously (I should hope.)

The problem is that, as with many, MANY perfectly fine and correct findings derived through rigorous scientific methods, it takes a mountain and a half of studies, some good, some great, some flawed, all overlapping and building off each other, correcting and correlating and criticizing each other to make up the more complete picture (climate change/global warming) that we see now. There are many experiments you can conduct in a lab, and then duplicate in further studies, controlling for as many factors as possible. With climate change and the impact thereof, the earth is our laboratory, and the factors are infinite and impossible. You can't test for "every fact of human interference in the environment"-- where would you even start? Fossil fuels? Ozone? Coal? The drainage of lakes, building of dams, rerouting of major water sources? Overfishing? Giant cow populations? Pollution in the air and sea resulting in major impact to algae blooms? How does what happen in China impact the US, and vice versa? No one study, experiment, or research can cover them all, we can only look at a thousand million studies and draw our conclusions from those. But that, of course, is a complex answer that isn't easily swallowed by folks who just want something black and white and fitting to their personal political views.

And of course, for every bit of research stating one thing, people can point to another bit of research stating another-- even if it's been disproven, outdated, or is found to be untrue. That's the beauty of science, that it's ever growing and ever self correcting, but also the pain of it, as down the line, you can find a study that proves any old bullshit you want to prove, and people will cling to that if it matches their belief. Much like anti-vaxxers clinging to the one disproven, totally bullshit "research" linking vaccines to autism and claiming that it's science, really, you're going to have climate change deniers doing much the same.

Mustachians,There are many environmental advocates in this crowd and I am hoping someone can help me find some facts I can use to argue for climate change. Most people who are on the other side of climate change don't argue that the world is getting warmer. But they want to know by how much is attributed to human intervention. What I am looking for is a study that specifically states what percentage of global warming is attributed to human activity.

There are lots of articles that say "a lot" or "significant" but none actually give me an answer to this question. There are also articles that say that 97% of scientists agree that human intervention adds to global warming but I can not find any that say by how much. I am hoping that a more devote environmentalist may be able to guide me to a good study that I can quote. I need real figures here please.

Thanks so much in advance.

Its a question without a specific number. Do cow's methane release count as human activities? Does permafrost melting also count? Some of the activities are loosely defined; for example fighting forest fires reduces carbon emissions, by lengthening forests natural cycles. How much credit do humans get for that?

I asked one of the scientists from the IPCC report similar question over a multitude of coffee chats. Basically its easier to give ranges than try to pinpoint exact numbers. As science progresses the original numbers will need refinement. Scientists still struggle with easy stuff like the diameter of the earth or the height of mount Everest (it changes by the way).

Precision is hard to find anywhere and is generally not needed. Take something common like Google maps, did you know all their locations aren't accurate either? In the early days they were of by several feet from GPS measurements, they're still wrong in lots of cases. Does it matter though? If t a layperson can accept Google maps as "good enough" are they really needing to apply the double standard of an exact number for climate change per person?

The particular sticking point is that the types of ideological concepts listed above are fundamental to identity and tribalism in a way that data cannot penetrate. So arguing from a point of facts is mostly useless. If you are trying to convince a hard core conservative nationalist whose identity is partly built around their rejection of 1) government right to regulate most of their individual choices, 2) and subsuming our national interest somewhat to the global interest and to a potentially power-hungry socialist global government, then they by definition CANNOT accept that climate change could be that bad, because accepting that fact would mean they must figure out a way to deal with it, and most methods of dealing with it conflict directly with their core beliefs.

I'll admit to being a "softcore" member of both 1 and 2. Do I believe pollution generally bad, man having some responsibility? Absolutely.

HOWEVER, do I also believe that many of the people/groups you mentioned, such as the US government and the UN, have a vested interest in increasing their power as much as possible, and will use AGW/CC as an excuse to grab as much as they can. You can be right, and still use that rightness as an excuse to do wrong.

As an example, use those famous pictures of LA in the 60s/70s and LA today. Everyone says "do you want to go back to the 60s/70s???" No, of course I don't. I'm not interested in rolling back all regulations. But you can't show me those pictures, with the giant improvement visible, and with me knowing about the massive increase in population, building, car use, etc, in that area in the timeframe between the two pictures, and tell me that now we must take drastic action. Because, wait, it's gotten a lot BETTER, but now the status quo will make us get much much worse? Sorry, doesn't compute.

I also, quite frankly, am willing to cede some low lying coastal areas to the ocean if it means I don't have to give up my rights and abilities to move about freely in my own private transportation.

...As an example, use those famous pictures of LA in the 60s/70s and LA today. Everyone says "do you want to go back to the 60s/70s???" No, of course I don't. I'm not interested in rolling back all regulations. But you can't show me those pictures, with the giant improvement visible, and with me knowing about the massive increase in population, building, car use, etc, in that area in the timeframe between the two pictures, and tell me that now we must take drastic action. Because, wait, it's gotten a lot BETTER, but now the status quo will make us get much much worse? Sorry, doesn't compute.

I also, quite frankly, am willing to cede some low lying coastal areas to the ocean if it means I don't have to give up my rights and abilities to move about freely in my own private transportation.

Not all pollution is visible. Remember cfcs and the ozone layer?

Are you willing to proportionately compensate those harmed by your actions (and continue actions) both in the US and elsewhere?

I don't care if the odds that CO2 emissions are causing global warming are only, say, 20%. 20% chance of a really horrible outcome is BAD. Who wants to play Russian Roulette with their kids and grandkids futures?

You don't wait to be *certain* you'll be in a wreck to put your seatbelt on. Likewise, I don't need or want scientific certainty about climate change before taking at least some minimal action to prevent/adapt.

That said, it'll be high altitude sulfates all the way eventually. I'd guess the world's billionaires have already drawn up the plans. I certainly would if I had the resources.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

To everyone who responded. Thank you so much for all the comments and the links provided. There is a lot of information for me to sift through and I want to devote my time to it appropriately. I have a few days off coming on Monday and will try and read as much as I could. Thanks again.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

Okay, so that's one vote for dirty air, dirty water, unhealthy children, never ending urban sprawl, unsustainable energy, and limitless pollution. It's probably not the most well thought out vote, but as we've recently learned, most people don't think much about their vote. This is why we can't have nice things.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

No need to restrict anything. Just tax carbon like mad, and refund via income tax rate reductions.

Mustachians,There are many environmental advocates in this crowd and I am hoping someone can help me find some facts I can use to argue for climate change. Most people who are on the other side of climate change don't argue that the world is getting warmer. But they want to know by how much is attributed to human intervention. What I am looking for is a study that specifically states what percentage of global warming is attributed to human activity.

There are lots of articles that say "a lot" or "significant" but none actually give me an answer to this question. There are also articles that say that 97% of scientists agree that human intervention adds to global warming but I can not find any that say by how much. I am hoping that a more devote environmentalist may be able to guide me to a good study that I can quote. I need real figures here please.

Thanks so much in advance.

Its a question without a specific number. Do cow's methane release count as human activities? Does permafrost melting also count? Some of the activities are loosely defined; for example fighting forest fires reduces carbon emissions, by lengthening forests natural cycles. How much credit do humans get for that?

I asked one of the scientists from the IPCC report similar question over a multitude of coffee chats. Basically its easier to give ranges than try to pinpoint exact numbers. As science progresses the original numbers will need refinement. Scientists still struggle with easy stuff like the diameter of the earth or the height of mount Everest (it changes by the way).

Precision is hard to find anywhere and is generally not needed. Take something common like Google maps, did you know all their locations aren't accurate either? In the early days they were of by several feet from GPS measurements, they're still wrong in lots of cases. Does it matter though? If t a layperson can accept Google maps as "good enough" are they really needing to apply the double standard of an exact number for climate change per person?

That's the point I was trying to make from the beginning. It's like trying to convince someone the sun is hot and they ask what the specific temperature is because they don't believe you. It's honestly a stupid question to put it bluntly. Human impact varies. It's not a static number because the climate isn't static. Natural forcing are not static. Human emissions are not static. It's a completely dynamic system.

That's the point I was trying to make from the beginning. It's like trying to convince someone the sun is hot and they ask what the specific temperature is because they don't believe you. It's honestly a stupid question to put it bluntly. Human impact varies. It's not a static number because the climate isn't static. Natural forcing are not static. Human emissions are not static. It's a completely dynamic system.

I think that's the source of the skepticism; if someone says "The sun is hot" but can't say how hot it is, there is room for question. I don't see people needing the answer "the sun is exactly 5,322 degree centigrade", but if the range of "hot" is "Well, pretty warm, don't bring a coat" to "you will combust hundreds of thousands of miles before you reach it", I could see where people don't understand the freak-out over the sun being warm. If only 10% of a 5 degree increase were attributable to humans, for example, would it make sense to shut down all power plants and all cars and never ship anything further than a person could bicycle ever again, to save 1/2 a degree of warming? (Purely for example, of course) This is the question I see the op searching to answer.

Climate change, however, is at the 'melt your face off' level of hot. It's going to be so terrible, for so many people, that to quibble over 90% or 110% is silly. Even in the good range, things are so much worse off for so many people that almost any level of concern is justified. Of course mathematically we're past the point of reaching 'good' outcomes, even with taking the most drastic of proposed measures, so concern isn't going to solve much.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

Here in Canada there's a movement afoot to get people to put more insulation in their houses...those bastards! They'll even give tax credits for solar panels, no way I'll fall for it. Fuel efficiency standards are even worse, how dare they tell car makers to make improvements!

Also what's up with selling low flow toilets and shower heads? that's downright akin to devil worship! How can I possibly flush my poo with those evil toilets.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

Here in Canada there's a movement afoot to get people to put more insulation in their houses...those bastards! They'll even give tax credits for solar panels, no way I'll fall for it. Fuel efficiency standards are even worse, how dare they tell car makers to make improvements!

Also what's up with selling low flow toilets and shower heads? that's downright akin to devil worship! How can I possibly flush my poo with those evil toilets.

I hate low flow toilets. No, I don't need a big hunking 5 gallon old-school toilet, but toilets that try to get it all flushed with a pint and a prayer have a bad track record, from my anecdotal experience.

Same thing with a low-flow showerhead. A shower that takes 3 minutes now takes 10 because it takes that long to wash out the shampoo from your hair.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

Here in Canada there's a movement afoot to get people to put more insulation in their houses...those bastards! They'll even give tax credits for solar panels, no way I'll fall for it. Fuel efficiency standards are even worse, how dare they tell car makers to make improvements!

You know what created the SUVs you guys love to hate? Half-assed fuel economy standards.

Quote

low flow toilets

Suck

Quote

and shower heads?

Also suck

Part of the problem is that some of this stuff sucks. The other part of the problem is that I don't trust the government to put in place legislation for it that makes any kind of sense and isn't riddled with terrible 2nd order effects (like the SUV craze when they classified trucks differently than cars when creating the CAFE standards).

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

Here in Canada there's a movement afoot to get people to put more insulation in their houses...those bastards! They'll even give tax credits for solar panels, no way I'll fall for it. Fuel efficiency standards are even worse, how dare they tell car makers to make improvements!

You know what created the SUVs you guys love to hate? Half-assed fuel economy standards.

Quote

low flow toilets

Suck

Quote

and shower heads?

Also suck

Part of the problem is that some of this stuff sucks. The other part of the problem is that I don't trust the government to put in place legislation for it that makes any kind of sense and isn't riddled with terrible 2nd order effects (like the SUV craze when they classified trucks differently than cars when creating the CAFE standards).

Baby + bathwater + toss

Rather than argue for no attempt, you could argue for a better attempt. I get it some of this stuff is hard but why cant we work for a better system rather than just saying fuck it while fiddling over the ashes.

What if I don't consider it a better world? Things like trying to force me into high density housing and public transportation and restricting other types of choices do not make a "better" world in my book.

Here in Canada there's a movement afoot to get people to put more insulation in their houses...those bastards! They'll even give tax credits for solar panels, no way I'll fall for it. Fuel efficiency standards are even worse, how dare they tell car makers to make improvements!

Also what's up with selling low flow toilets and shower heads? that's downright akin to devil worship! How can I possibly flush my poo with those evil toilets.